|
Know Your Enemy
Foreword
The author composed this article, if memory serves
correct, in the summer of 2000. A passage of approximately 3 years has since
transpired since the author put thoughts into words and typed this text. Since
the summer of 2000 there have been many changes in terms of the political and
social context of Northern Ireland. There has been change it is true, most
change has been unfortunately for the worse with regard to the objective
interests of the Loyalist people.
Many of the issues raised by the text, in the author’s
humble opinion, still remain as pertinent today as the day that they were
conceived and put into the author’s own words. The author had in truth the
essay already within the recesses of the mind and all that it required was for
these ideas, thoughts, beliefs to be given expression in words. In retrospection
the text was self-evidently composed with much of the exuberance of youth and
bustled with militancy. This period of reflection has allowed the author to make
slight amendments to the text that in the authors opinion improve upon the text
whilst at the same time do not alter its content in any fundamental aspect.
These changes are mostly of a grammatical nature with some slight alterations to
sentence structure but as I have already stated: the fundamentals of the text
remain untouched as the author makes no apologies for the views expressed and
still believes that social change in Northern Ireland is moving in the direction
as outlined by the text.
The text offers no answers to the problems or issues raised, it is merely the first steps in the attempt to build some sort of ideological building block upon which further contributors could build upon. All ideologies it can be said contain within them three key components:
This text in terms of the main theme of the various
chapters is concerned mainly with the first key component. The author as a
result can be accused of having offered no solutions or vision of something
better, but in response to this the author would maintain that this is not the
role of any one loyalist but this vision should, if the time presents, be
articulated through debate and inter-exchange of visions with regard to how
better the social world in which we all reside could be altered so as to best
benefit all the people of our society. Ultimately the Loyalist people will, if
the chance presents itself, decide this issue for themselves.
The faults of the text are in retrospection that it may
have presented the impression that the strategy of the Irish Republican movement
was changing in a more rapid manner than was actually the case. The author
acknowledges that the old strategy of ethnic-cleansing has not disappeared but
believes that the Irish Republican movement is slowly but surely engaging in
what the author at the time described as a ‘civilising process’ and the
author still holds this view to be true. The only point that the author believes
to be in error upon was in given the impression that this ‘civilising’ was
more widespread and quickly disseminated within the Irish Republican movement as
a whole.
With regard to the changing role of the state vis-à-vis
the Loyalist people the author believes that events have shown no evidence to
suggest anything other than the transitional stages as outlined in the text
coming slowly but surely into being. Even a cursory examination of the security
forces and the fundamental changes that it has undergone will add weight to what
is in the author’s opinion a self-evident fact. The relationship of the state
to the Loyalist people is changing, more and more a hostile attitude is evident
amongst the Loyalist people to various branches of the state system.
Lastly, the analysis of the economic factors present within the political context and the priority given to underlying economic factors in structuring of the projects of given social formations is in the opinion of the author correct. Also, the argument put forward to refute the Celtic Tiger ‘tendency’ for moving in a United Ireland political direction was also, in the opinion of the author, correct. Indeed, the economy in the Republic of Ireland has entered what appears to be a slow-down in economic growth and even in the words of the Irish Taoiseach Mr Ahern "Clearly progress over the last couple of years has been slower," also the economy of the Republic of Ireland has lost much in terms of its competitiveness and this is reflected in survey results comparing it with other economies. The notion of some sort of linear progress in terms of economic growth was more or less implicit in some of the underlying thinking within certain ‘political’ circles. It is obvious anyway that to Loyalists freedom means more than any short-term financial gains, freedom is more than the freedom of capital to invest where it can best expand itself.
When the Loyalist people live in fear and under threat
of intimidation and violence then the so-called ‘peace’ is broken and the
only valid response is that of counter-violence. The present Irish Republican
campaign of ethnic and cultural cleansing that was initiated in the late
1960’s has not yet abated but has, or appears to be taking, another
configuration. Unlike the violence of the preceding decades of what is
euphemistically termed ‘the troubles’ in which the various branches of the
state system were broadly speaking ‘sympathetic’ or ‘neutral’ with
regard to the role of Loyalist counter insurgency we now are faced with the
situation in which the state system has become, or is in the process of
becoming, the indirect instrument of the very people who once sought so strongly
to smash it. The republican movement no longer wishes to destroy the state; they
wish to utilise the state to enable them to further their own project, that of
destroying the cultural identity of the Loyalist people in order to further
their unchanged aim of a united Ireland. This shift in the relationship between
the state system, encompassing a wide range of state institutions, and the
Loyalist people dovetails with a subtle yet perceptible change in the strategy
of Irish Republicanism. In order to understand the present, however, we must
first come to an understanding of the past.
Over the centuries a struggle has raged interminably,
sometimes overt – sometimes of a more covert nature, but always ready to flare
up into conflagration at the slightest moment. This struggle has taken the
manifestation of the attempt on the part of those who perceive themselves to be
the ‘indigenous’ people of Ireland, the Catholic Irish, to cleanse areas of
their indigenous Protestant inhabitants. One
of the most infamous examples of this is the slaughter that took place along the
banks of the river Bann in Portadown in the year of 1641. In this one act of
barbarity, that saw men, women and children tortured and drowned, it is
estimated that some 500 members of the Protestant community lost their lives at
the hand of Irish Catholicism/Nationalism. This process of the removal of a
particular ethnic grouping from a given territory, is known by the term ethnic
cleansing and has been the dominant strategy of Irish Republicanism/Nationalism
with regard to those they term ‘settlers’ within ‘their land’. It would
appear, however, that a new strategy is emerging, albeit slowly, from Irish
Republicanism. What is this new strategy? And how does this new strategy differ
in nature from that which has come before?
This new strategy, still in embryonic configuration, is
perhaps better conceptualised and termed as ‘cultural cleansing’ rather than
pure and simple ethnic cleansing, although there are similarities and overlaps
between the two. This is also not to suggest that ethnic cleansing has ceased in
its most markedly sectarian manifestations either but attention and analysis
must be given to this new strategy. New tactics, indeed perhaps a whole new
methodology, have been utilised by Irish Republicanism particularly since the
commencement of the armed Loyalist organisations cessation of violence but also
too from the implementation of policies the orientation of which is clearly to
appease Irish Republicanism. The emphasis now of Irish Republicanism, the tacit
goals or project of that movement and of broadly speaking the institutions that
constitute Catholic Nationalist civil society, is not so much to create areas,
ghettos, in which no Protestants – Unionists and Loyalists are allowed to
exist but to create areas in which Protestants are allowed to exist but not to
predominate within and in which Protestant-Loyalist culture is no longer
hegemonic or given free expression. What is happening at a macro-level, the
removal of the Union flags from state buildings; the removal of indeed all
symbols of British identity slowly but relentlessly, is paralleled at the
micro-level within the very streets, estates, towns and cities that make up
society at various levels within Northern Ireland. Let us now look in more
detail at the strategies; tactics and methodology used by Irish Republicanism,
its functionaries and various bodies, vis-à-vis the state system and the
Loyalist people.
Changing
Times: The New Strategy
To displace a people is termed ethnic cleansing, a very
emotive label that carries with it enormous moral import and indeed a less than
subtle approach to inter-communal contradictions of interest that brings with it
moral outrage and condemnation on varying scales of intensity usually
commensurate with the scale of the ethnic cleansing and the brutality of the
methods used to implement the strategy. For centuries the Catholic-Nationalist
community in Ireland and Northern Ireland have sought to remove those they term
‘settlers’ from all parts of Ireland. They ponder, however, little the fact
that they are themselves descended from those who came to Ireland from without,
settlers in every sense of the word. They also dwell little upon the fact that
they themselves are descended from a people who ethnically cleansed the island
of Ireland of its indigenous inhabitants as completely as the Americas were
cleansed of their indigenous people, the various Indian societies. The greatest
myth that was ever sold into the collective stock of apparent ‘commonsense’
knowledge of our history is that the Protestant-Loyalist people are settlers and
the Gael was not. It is this myth that in part gives the moral justification,
and international sympathies from some quarters, to the attempts of Irish
Republicanism to drive the indigenous people, the Protestant people, into the
Irish Sea.
It can be said, however, that there has been what might
be termed a civilizing process in relation to the new strategy, tactics and
methodology that is slowly being employed in order to further the project of the
Republican movement. By a civilising process what is meant is that the methods
used have become more subtle and sophisticated. This change in strategy
parallels the increasing political sophistication of (Provisional) Sinn
Fein/IRA. The British political establishment laid the bedrock for this
civilising process when it encouraged the republican prisoners to take part, and
also provided the funding for, various educational based courses of a political
nature. In a very real sense the British political establishment provided the
Irish Republican movement with the weapons, political sophistication and a
coherent ideology and strategy, to enable them to bring about their goals that
up until then Irish Republicanism had considered, in case of the Provisional
IRA, could only be achieved by pure physical force.
The new strategy that is in the process of development
can be best described as cultural cleansing and like every new strategy there
are new tactics and methods that have accompanied its inception. The central
tactic of cultural cleansing is that of ‘peaceful penetration’ although this
is perhaps a somewhat misleading term as violence and threats of violence are by
no means absent. This tactic is part of a wider strategy of cultural cleansing
with the eventual goal of ethnic assimilation. This is not assimilation in the
sense that both ethnic groupings merge, both contributing to each other identity
some aspects of their respective cultural identity and diversity, but
assimilation in the sense that one ethnic grouping is to be annexed into the
other. In comparison to the steel block that is Catholic-Nationalist society,
the Protestant people are fragmented and as a result they are weakened. This
united front of Irish Nationalism, which comprises networks of inter-linked
organisations and associations, are the hidden hands behind cultural cleansing.
The hidden hands, so called because of the covert nature in which these functionaries of Irish Republicanism work, consists broadly speaking of the main institutions of Catholic-Nationalist civil society as well as those groupings that have sprung up since the ‘ceasefire’ period: such as the various resident groups and associations. The relation of forces between these various coalition of malignant organisations and associations is not, however, a simple one and there is a jostling for position but all work along the lines of the same project orientation. It is probable and indeed highly likely that within this coalition of forces it is Sinn Fein/IRA and the Catholic Church who are the dominant partners, a self-evident assertion for most Loyalists. The various resident associations are not independent of the main institutions and organisations but act as steering committers, where representatives from all strands of the hidden hand can act in a more co-ordinated way with regard to their approach to issues of strategy etc. There is also the symbiotic side of the coalition of forces that serves to bind them together: for example, the Catholic Church in order to further its own project must rely upon the IRA and Sinn Fein for physical force whilst Sinn Fein rely in part upon the Catholic Church to provide, more or less, ideological justification through its implicit understanding that has been reached with Irish Nationalism being synonymous with Irish Catholicism. The Catholic Church also allegedly funds many aspects of the strategy in an indirect manner.
The State:
Friend or Foe?
The hidden hands, that coalition of dark forces, has
perceived a shift in the situation with regard to Northern Ireland of the most
fundamental nature, particularly with regard to the role of the state vis-à-vis
the two ethnic groupings and in particular its policy orientation towards
Unionism and Loyalism. There are undoubtedly those within the ranks of hidden
hands that have correctly identified the state as a potential instrument, albeit
an indirect instrument, that can be used to further their own sectional
interests and goals. The state system has shifted in its position, in the early
period of the present ‘troubles’ the state forces acted sometimes in unison
with the Loyalist people in order to maintain law and order but a process has
emerged over the last ten years or more, particularly it should be noted after
the ceasefire declarations, in which the state is slowly being used as the
indirect instrument of those who once proclaimed that it was their goal to smash
it.
The state system has become an indirect instrument for a
number of different reasons. First of all it must be clarified that the state
system is made up of a number of different institutions, within such
institutions there are a few positions that virtually monopolise power: the
political elite. The higher the office within the overall state structure so the
authority and powers of those functionaries who occupy these positions increases
correspondingly. Over the last 25 years we have seen such positions increasingly
occupied by those from a Catholic Irish Nationalist background. Increasingly we
find that it is Irish Nationalists who hold these key positions of power, such
as: judges, civil servants, and the upper echelons of the police (now
re-designated the Police Service of Northern Ireland in line with the overall
process of ensuring that the Police are made more acceptable to the
Nationalist/Republican community but increasingly less acceptable to the
Unionist/Loyalist community) and indeed in all other state and semi-state bodies
they are also present. Also, even if we leave aside the question of religious or
community affiliation there are many within the state elite, from apparently
Protestant or Unionist backgrounds who are ideologically unsound and who turn a
blind eye to the implementation of the project or who are just too engrossed in
the minutiae of their functions, or trappings and enjoyments of high office
within the state system to even notice. Such nominal ‘unionists’ serve to
give the impression of a state system that is structurally neutral, and is
responsive to all sections of society.
Through various internal
mechanisms, and external pressures, the security apparatus of the state system,
particularly the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been turned into the
indirect instrument of the hidden hands. One of the main reasons for this shift
has undoubtedly been pressure from above, from the upper echelons of the state
system, that is, the state system considered as a totality. Since, and a result
of, the recommendations of the Patten report and increasing scrutiny being
applied to the police force from various quarters we now have the situation were
the police on the ground will almost inevitably take the side of the
Catholic-Nationalist community in any dispute that should flare between the two
communities and on whatever scale it should happen to take. This ‘impartial
policing’ is made all the more enforceable due to policing recruitment
practices which systematically impede Loyalists and those from Loyalist families
from entering the police force. Indeed this practice, which has been tacit
policy for over a decade, is to be institutionalised, so it would appear, with
prohibition of Orange Order (or indeed any of the Loyal Institutions) membership
or at the very least discouragement of dual membership. At the same time police
recruits are to be encouraged to engage in activities with a very obvious
Catholic Irish Nationalist ethos such as the playing of Gaelic Football and
membership of such Gaelic Football Associations. The result of all these factors
is that the police become the indirect instrument of Nationalists in disputes
between the two ethnic groupings.
Lastly, all the above factors
are heightened and enhanced by the increasing social alienation of those who
occupy positions of employment within the state system, particularly so it would
seem with regard to the police force and other law enforcement bodies. Due to
extraordinary levels of pay complimented by high levels of over-time and a
varied assortment of other ‘fringe benefits’ the police force have become
socially and spatially isolated from the community from which the majority of
their membership originates from and which they were supposed to protect from
attack from violent Irish Nationalism. The salaries of police functionaries, far
above the average salary, have enabled police functionaries to move to other
areas of Northern Ireland, distinctively middle-class areas and estates thus
distancing themselves from the Loyalist community and indeed the majority of the
Unionist community in the process. Unlike the R.U.C. that was regarded, broadly
speaking, up until the mid-1980s as being a police force drawn from the Unionist
and Loyalist people in order to serve the community and enforce the rule of law,
the R.U.C. since the mid 1980s and the present police force are alienating
institutions in every sense of the word. All Loyalist who have the misfortune to
come into contact with the police cannot help but feel that they have in contact
with an alien institution, an institution that is not of them of the other, that
is not for them but for the other.
In order to better understand
the state and its role vis-à-vis the Loyalist people we must begin to conceive
of the state as system and not just in terms of individuals or personalities. By
this what is meant is that one part of the state is not an independent
autonomous entity, but is manipulated by the other branches of the state system.
Also, within each separate yet interconnected state institution it is nearly
always the case that the strings are being pulled by a comparatively small
number of people. Such people will often have come to be in their position of
office not through any inherent strengths such as intelligence or fair
mindedness or even that they are good at their respective function but because
they obey orders and hold the same views as those who make up the various state
power elites. Those occupy these positions of power and authority all have a
metaphorical bullet through the head, that is, they say more or less what they
are told to say and they do more or less what they are told to do, in most cases
unquestionably. The state is a result something of a silencing machine and
increasingly those it chooses to silence are Loyalists.
For all those who hold festering
hopes that the state is not as it would appear from this text need only ponder
upon what the state inflicts upon the Loyalist people. In a multitude of ways,
both everyday and extraordinary, the state demonstrates something of its true
character and essence, which is still disguised to some extent by the symbols
and trappings of the old state order. Yet with every infamy of state repression
the state elites, and those that carry out their bidding, heighten Loyalist
consciousness. The state elites are rotten to the core and like everything that
is putrid it has begun to stink. The state system wishes to destroy all
resistance to the ‘peace process’ or as it is more accurately described by
some the appeasement process. It has done this through murdering, imprisoning
and deliberately seeking to divide the Loyalist organisations and people. The
state media, those who have the power to shape opinions and perceptions,
deliberately lie and give misinformation so as to harm the Loyalist cause. The
state is more than a mere collection of individuals or personalities it is a
system with a project.
All those who doubt that the
state system is not working moves against the Loyalist people should consider
the most infamous but by no means unique example of state murder, the killing of
leading loyalist Billy Wright. The murder of Billy Wright must been assessed
within the context of the time that it occurred and the events of that time:
such as his role in the Drumcree stand off and perhaps more importantly his
stance with regard to the direction in which he realised the peace process was
leading. Billy Wright was a pivotal factor with regard to the Drumcree issue and
his leadership is widely acknowledged to have turned the tide of events but also
more importantly he was beginning to articulate the argument against the
direction that the peace process was leading and it appeared that his stance,
regardless of the issue of the split within Mid-Ulster, was gaining support day
by day from the Loyalist people. This is why Billy Wright was murdered; he was a
threat to the project of the state system and a ‘road obstacle’ to the
process. The state system recognised the threat that Wright posed to their
project and so conspired between several branches of the state system to have
him ‘neutralised’. This meant no less than state sanctioned murder, a state
conspiracy that is still being unravelled right to this day but the truth of
which may never see the light of day, at least not from the mouths of those who
sanctioned his murder.
This neutralising of a leading
loyalist demonstrates, perhaps more clearly than any other example, the state as
a system whose goal is to smash all resistance to its project. At the highest
levels of the security branch of the state system, more than likely within one
of the many shadowy state institutions established to engage in dirty tricks
against the Loyalist people, a scheme was conceived. A price was offered, the
bait was dangled and a Lundy duly stepped forward and received their 30 pieces
of silver. In return for money and a new identity the Lundy went along with the
framing of Billy Wright. The Judge, one of those who constitute the state elite,
was a Catholic and handed down the harshest of sentences, 8 years, totally and
completely disproportionate to the alleged offence that had been committed. In
some cases this offence is regarded as little more than a cautionary matter by
the police but in the case of Billy Wright the full weight of ‘British
justice’ was thrown behind the attempt to have him imprisoned and out of the
equation at any cost. We should not, however, think of this act as merely a
product of one individual’s hatred of Loyalism, in this case the Roman
Catholic Judge who presided of the circus that was a courtroom, but as part of
the orientation of action adopted by the system with regard to its overall
binding project.
For a time the state elites were
content to have Wright in prison out of the political equation but then the
prospect that was no doubt anticipated by the state elites that if they were to
appease republicanism all Irish Republicans prisoners would have to be freed so
came the prospect that Billy Wright may regain his freedom that had been so
unjustly removed from him. If Billy Wright had left the prison alive it would
have made any attempt to neutralise him more difficult, as all previous attempts
to do so whilst he was on the outside had failed. Within prison, however, he was
vulnerable, the state elites decided no doubt that if he was to be assassinated
it would have to be done whilst he was still incarcerated in prison. The state
elites did not want, however, to directly kill Wright, as this would have left
too much blood on their own hands. Instead they either allegedly assisted in
directly colluding with the Republican murder gang or they turned a blind eye to
what was going on, for example: the smuggling of guns into what was apparently a
secure environment. On the day that Billy Wright was shot three members of the
Irish National Liberation Army (I.N.L.A.) went absent from their designated
wing, cut through wire fencing with wire cutters also apparently smuggled into
the prison and preceded to clamber up onto the roof between the two wings in
which the respective prisoners of the INLA and LVF were housed. The security
camera that monitored this area was ‘broken’ and had been so for some
considerable duration. The guard who was on tower look out duty, who could have
raised the alarm as soon as the INLA prisoners had been spotted running across
the roof was also apparently stood down from his post on two occasions. The
state elites congratulated themselves for they had decapitated, so they
believed, the main obstacle of resistance to their project.
Billy Wright was killed by the state elites. They may not have pulled the trigger but they created the situation that was exploited by the enemies of Ulster. Those that put the price on his head lurk in the shadows but his killers are well known, they are those that command the positions and offices that make up the state elites. If these state elites refuse to live in peace with the Loyalist people and their culture then it will hardly be surprising that Loyalism does not give them peace to live in return. Let them continue to oppress the Loyalist people, let them continue to blind our children with rubber bullets and beat on elderly men, and in some cases even women, who fought for their country but who had the courage of their convictions to stand at Drumcree and demand that they too have rights and they shall reap the seeds of hatred that they sow. A consciousness is spreading amongst the Loyalist people, brutal and simple at first, but with every act of repressive violence against them comes an education that will lead to eventual true consciousness. All those who work moves against the Loyalist people shake in your shoes, you are known.
Methods and
Strategy: A Coven of the Ungodly
The hidden hands whose project (their vision of society
that they manifest through the principles of their orientation of action) has
converged with that of the state elites, have over the last decade or so
formulated a new strategy that is best perhaps described by the term cultural
cleansing. The strategy is simply put as thus: to ensure that there are no areas
in which Protestants/Loyalists predominate and in which Loyalist culture is
given free expression, or has hegemony. The new war is increasingly a cultural
war, however, that does not mean it is a war in which are not involved.
Ultimately it is people who hold culture not culture that holds people although
this is putting it somewhat crudely. What the hidden hands wish to achieve is
the situation in which there is a demographic spread of the Loyalist people, a
weakening of the attachment of the Loyalist people to their culture and a
corresponding weakening of the position of those Loyal institutions that ensure
cultural continuity and lastly they wish to see the eventual hegemonic
expression of Catholic Irish culture.
Why do the hidden hands wish to
consign Loyalist culture to the memories of an ever-decreasing number of people?
What do they want to stop Loyalist culture from having free expression? To many
Loyalists the answer to all these questions is self-evident, Irish Catholicism,
Nationalism and Republicanism is predisposed towards intolerance towards all
that differs from itself, namely, Protestantism, Unionism and Loyalism. This is
superficially true as there is little doubt that to some extent as Irish
Catholicism, Nationalism and Republicanism are intolerant ethnic and political
groupings. These strands of Irish Nationalism and Catholicism are culturally
predisposed towards violence against Protestants and Loyalists. The main
institutions of Catholic-Nationalist civil society indoctrinate, or attempt to
indoctrinate, so that members of that particular ethnic grouping come to have an
orientation of intolerance towards the other. This analysis, whilst correct,
only enlightens us to a certain extent with regard to exactly why they wish to
have Loyalist culture silenced permanently. In order better to understand this
matter we must first understand the concept of culture itself and its import to
the struggle that Loyalism now faces.
The term culture is a term much bandied about, thrown into conversation and ‘informed’ opinion, much like the proverbial stone at an interface riot yet rarely is the nature and importance of culture really given careful consideration. Culture is what, some would argue, stands us apart from the animal kingdom and it is also what stands us apart from our Irish Nationalist/Republican neighbours. In order to better come to terms with the importance of culture we should think of it as being divided into two separate parts: to put it simply, what we do and what we think or culture within and culture without. Unless one ethnic grouping or interest grouping within any given society or societal structure has a virtual monopoly on the means of disseminating ideas, values, beliefs etc. then it is virtually impossible to completely control what other ethnic groupings or societal structures believe and think. Indeed, the thought processes of the mind derive not just from the model that culture provides us with in order to understand but also in part from direct perception. Even when this monopoly of thought does occur, and cultural expression is silenced so it would appear, cultural diversity may well continue to perpetuate itself ideationally. This will, however, only occur or be more successful in its occurrence when the following factors are present. These are as follows:
The hidden hands that work moves behind the scenes, know
the importance of cultural expression. They also know the importance of strong
cultural institutions whose role it is to perpetuate cultural traditions and
belief systems. The Orange Order had for centuries been the unifying force
within the Protestant community. It brought together at one time all the social
classes of the period: the landowner, the mill owners, the artisans and the
working class as well as the various Protestant religious denominations. To some
extent it welded Protestantism together, and counteracted the heterogeneous
nature of Protestantism, which is inherent in the individualism of Protestant
culture. It also protected the Protestant people and was, and still is to a
lesser extent, a strong linkage in the process of enculturation. The
‘rituals’ of these institutions symbolise Protestantism and through not just
the Loyal Orders but also too from the very rituals themselves Protestant
culture is strengthened ideationally. This is why the loyal institutions have
been attacked, why there parades have been a target for the steering committees
known as resident association and why they have at every turn been branded by
every slander under the sun.
The new strategy of cultural
cleansing has called forth new methods, a new methodology of intimidation. The
term intimidation, however, requires us once again to re-conceptualise what
exactly is meant by this term in order that we are able to better understand the
strategy of cultural cleansing. We tend to associate intimidation with acts of,
or threats of, violence made with reference to a person or persons, in order to
try to make those threatened act in ways that the person making the threat
wishes them to, for whatever their reason or motivation if indeed they have any.
Within the context of the strategy of cultural cleansing the concept of
intimidation should be thought of as all those actions, both violent and non
violent, whose purpose is to make certain people, namely certain Protestants or
Loyalists to leave their dwellings or a particular given location. As we shall
see, this new strategy of cultural cleansing is akin in some respects to ethnic
cleansing yet in other important respects specific to the context of society in
Northern Ireland it differs: the emphasis is upon cultural hegemony and
(specific to Northern Ireland context) the state is used as an instrument in the
process. The state as we shall see is fact becoming the space which the
Catholic-Nationalist and Republican community use to dig the grave of Loyalist
culture and thereby the Loyalist people.
In order to achieve cultural
cleansing a tactic has emerged which can best be termed as was mentioned
beforehand as ‘peaceful penetration’. This is something of a misnomer in
that the process is by no means peaceful and violence of varying degrees is by
no means absent from the equation. What this term does, however, illustrate is
the relatively peaceful nature of the initial phase in this process. What
exactly, however, is ‘peaceful penetration’: it is the ingress both
materially and culturally of Irish Catholicism/Nationalism into areas that are
predominantly Protestant and Unionist in ethos. Those who enter such areas do
not do it welding baseball bats and hurley sticks but increasingly with cloying
smiles and cups of sweetened tea. The come to areas meek and mild but leave them
like an addiction. The community is the addict that has inadvertently welcomed
the cuckoo into its midst and no matter what the community does the parasite
will cling on and push out.
The hidden hands direct this
tactic of peaceful penetration and moves against the Loyalist people are often,
so it is alleged, to take place after Mass in so called houses of God. The
Catholic Church it is alleged is the real directing force behind such moves.
They provide the motivational suggestion, as well as in many cases the financial
backing for such projects. Appropriate areas suggested by the hidden hands that
pick out what might be termed ‘foot soldiers’ whose role it is to be the
first family (or families) to nestle in the predominantly Protestant area. Such
areas are often chosen because although they are predominantly Protestant they
are not what might be called ‘Loyalist’ areas. The area in question is
usually lower middle-class or affluent working-class in social standing. Such
areas tend to be more liberal, the people within them divided more bitterly over
material envy. In those areas that are working-class, where there is almost
equality of inequality, the people have less to lose and so seek to defend what
little they have, their culture, to the last.
Those initial
Catholic-Nationalist families that arrive will often be under the guise of mixed
marriage. They are, however, not mixed in the sense that those that constitute
the household are equally committed to the respective ideological stance of
their given ethnic grouping. Such families are mixed only in the sense that one
of their members is nominally Protestant, be it the male or female of the
household in question. They use this ambivalent status, this pretence, to enter
predominantly Protestant areas and establish themselves. Once established within
areas they will immediately begin to test the waters to see what the reaction
is. They will, in those families in which it is the female of the household who
is the manifest Catholic seek to make friends with Protestant families
indirectly though the female of such families. Unfortunately the worthy female
qualities, generally speaking, of forgiveness, gentleness and kindness are taken
advantage of and used by this skilled social actor.
This initial phase, the gauging
of the tolerance of the Protestant people in the given area, is accompanied by
the pretence of tolerance towards Protestants and their culture. Such families
will present themselves as the embodiment of toleration, meek and mild in manner
but as cunning as the fox and with the project in mind. Once one such
‘mixed’ marriage family establishes itself in the area this then opens up
the first chain of immigration into the area. This initial phase of immigration
will be on a small scale and will still involve the use of the mixed marriage as
the cloak of convenience by which such families are enabled to reside within the
given area. Eventually there comes a point at which the balance of forces within
the area reaches a point at which the next phase of cultural cleansing begins.
This point may be as little as 5%-10% of the area keeping in mind that these
people are reinforced not just by the hidden hands but also too, as we shall
see, by the state system itself.
The next phase involves a more
pro-active stance on the part of the hidden hands and their ‘foot soldiers’.
Once this initial wave of Catholic-Nationalist immigration has taken place, and
the necessary balance of forces is present within the given location, this
enables the small but vociferous Catholic-Nationalist minority to resist the
initial backlash from the community that is usually not of sufficient intensity
nor of a co-ordinated nature to removed the minority that has come to live in
their midst. The problem is often the distance that exists, both spatially and
socially, between the given community and the respective Loyalist organisations
that are prominent within the location in question. Unfortunately this is not
the only contributory factor with regard to the susceptibility of such areas.
Another weakness is that there tends to be a weakening of community interaction
or ‘community spirit’ that is fostered by the onset of a materialistic
outlook within such areas. Amongst some there is a mentality that wealth and
material possessions are the social solvent, the conception of ‘us’ little
more than a socio-economic expression. Greed breeds naïve liberalism and a
toleration of the intolerant.
The hidden hands are, however,
not content to maintain balance of forces within the given area of a mere 5-10%
as they wish to create an area that is no longer a link the process of Loyalist
cultural continuity. They order those within the given area, their ‘foots
soldiers’ to stir things up, to begin to push, to create trouble at every
opportunity not matter how slight that presents itself. The result is a
multitude of interminable disputes, incidents and the inevitable violence
against person and property. These disputes flare up everywhere, and any excuse
is used in order to stir things up. In the street the children of Protestant
families will be beaten up, stones will be thrown at windows, cars will be
damaged and/or stolen and rows with be instigated over seemingly trivial
matters. Those families or households that openly express their Loyalist or
Protestant culture, by flying the flag of their country or attending church, are
usually the targets. Another tactic is to start disputes with those families
least able to defend themselves such as those families and households with
disabled and/or elderly members.
After the initial backlash
against the invading Catholic-Nationalist families that may well involve some
slight actions against them, the state will usually enter the fray. In such
circumstances the Catholic-Nationalist family will nominate one of its members,
usually the mother or daughter of the family, to appear at the Police barracks
with crocodile tears in their eyes and little children in their arms. The
P.S.N.I. are unfortunately very susceptible to such threadbare spectacles due to
the simple reason that many of their members have come think in the simplistic
stereotype dichotomy of Protestant family embroiled in such a dispute equals
‘bad’ and that nominally mixed Catholic family equals ‘good’. These
simplistic stereotypes that the police take into their every conflict situation
between Protestant and Catholic (nominally mixed) families and households has
been drummed into them by their institutional structure, by the wider media and
society. This orientation of action with regard to dispute resolution is again
influenced strongly by the fact of the social alienation of those who make up
the rank and file membership of the P.S.N.I. or to put it another way, they
simply do not see at first hand the situation that many Protestant and Loyalist
families and households face in their day to day existence.
The act of getting in first is
crucial and inevitably the Catholic-Nationalist family will be the first to bang
upon the barrack doors. Unlike in the 1970s and the earlier years of the
troubles when going to the police was looked upon as nothing less than an act of
treachery the hidden hands are quite keen it would appear to encourage this
tactic. Once within the confines of the barracks the individual selected to
represent the Catholic family in question will seek to tell as many lies and
possible in order to blacken the name of the family and household members of all
those that they happen to dislike within the area. If there is a young male
living within the household they will usually concentrate their lies upon that
individual as once again the police have come to think in the simplistic
stereotype that Protestant male youth is little more than ‘bigots’ and
‘boot boys’. The Protestant family now finds that the P.S.N.I. are firmly on
the side of the Catholic family and that they too will begin to make life
unbearable in their own unique way for the family or household in question. The
Protestant family finds that no matter how much they report the incidents that
occur against them that they are not acted upon nor regarded with the same
import as those alleged incidents reported by the Catholic family. The P.S.N.I.
will go out of their way to defend these Catholic families.
In combination with this daily
harassment, both from the Catholic-Nationalist family and from the police, the
hidden hands will try by all means necessary to make life intolerable for the
Protestant family. Another tactic which is becoming increasingly common is to
try to find out where the member of the Protestant household work and use this
information in order to make their working environments hostile towards them. If
they do not know where the household members work they will make it their
business to find out, using their contacts within the Chapel in order to try and
gain further information with regard to the household members. Once they know
the place of work of the household members they will ensure that as many
Catholics-Nationalists are told to make life tough for the Protestant members of
the workforce. Unfortunately the same tactic is not able to be used in many
cases against the Catholic/Nationalist family or household as in many cases
there simply is no member of the family who appears to engage in legitimate
employment or works for a company in which there are no Protestants employed.
This may all seem rather
insignificant; just a few soft ‘Prods’ being forced out. This is
unfortunately the attitude of many within the Protestant community and in many
cases it is these people who are most scared and who do least to support those
Protestant families in trouble. What such people should consider is this simple
fact, you can hide if you like behind closed blinds pretending to be oblivious
to all that is going on around you, but eventually when they come for you who
will speak up for you? Even if such a response is indeed a true expression of
their genuine feelings with regard to the matter it is fundamentally flawed as
it is based very much upon an assessment of such a situation from the standpoint
of ethnic cleansing. Such thoughts and attitudes are based upon the assumption
no doubt that just a few less ‘Prods’ are unlikely to make much of a
difference in the given location. Consider this, however, if a town is
predominantly Protestant the hidden hands do not need to ethnically cleanse it
in order that cultural expression is silenced or curtailed. All they need do is
ensure that Catholic/Nationalist families and households are present in
sufficient numbers at both the ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ of a town in
sufficient numbers and as a result cultural parades and the expression of
Protestant culture becomes shackled within the given town.
It is not that the state system has any direct relationship at present with those organisations and association that make up the hidden hands, that is, the state is not yet the direct instrument of these forces. What Loyalists must grasp is that the state has a project and that this project is shaped by the social context, or society, in which it is situated and increasingly other pressures brought to bear upon it. Civil society is akin to a battleground in which there is ideological warfare for the hearts and minds of the people of our society, and indeed for the sympathies of the international community. Those institutions that once fought in the field putting forward Loyalist or Unionist analyses have either faded away or have become ideologically diluted. At the same time those institutions that put forward an Irish Nationalist and Republican perspective have by contrast not become ideologically diluted nor have they faded away nor been taking over by companies that have interests/belief systems at variance with the analysis that they have consistently put forward. To say that this or that state functionary is loyal or disloyal only takes us so far with regard to our understanding of the state system, what we must arrive at through open debate, is a structural analysis of the state system and a holistic view of the society and the relations that exist between the varying levels of society and the state system and their role vis-à-vis the Loyalist people and more importantly the impact of their policy orientation upon the objective interests of the Protestant, Unionist and Loyalist people. Only then can we broach the more important, and indeed logical question, exactly what do we the Loyalist people do next?
There is a tendency within
unionism, a reoccurring tendency it should be noted, a tendency that ebbs and
flows like the tide but in direct correspondence so it would seem with the
economic tide. At the present David Trimble, the present leader of the Ulster
Unionist Party represents this tendency. David Trimble has come to symbolise the
tendency in the minds of many people, he has become synonymous with the process
itself, yet he is but one individual expression (albeit the most important from
the political perspective) of a latent force that has been stimulated in the
last ten years or so. It could be argued that had any of the other candidates
who had stood for election to the leadership of the U.U.P. been successful it is
probable that they too would probably have had to engage in much the same
orientation of policy towards the appeasement process. To argue simply that
David Trimble is a traitor and that is was somehow to be removed from the
political equation all our problems with regard to the appeasement process would
be at an end is to make a gross miscalculation with regard to the matter. It is
also to misunderstand the nature of the social forces at work in shaping policy
orientation. The state has a project that is shaped from without, from societal
forces and powerful interest groups, and so too the political party. The Trimble
tendency is an expression, to put it crudely, of economic trends, of financial
self-interest, of simple ‘fur coat’ greed.
When we look back at those groupings that backed the
‘Yes’ campaign on the Referendum what we find is a coalition of business
(CBI) and upper middle class support. The reason for this must be sought in the
wider economic context for the tendency is linked to this climate. The tendency
is in itself not inherently anti-union, indeed it can on occasions be
particularly pro-union but it is a supported that is a conditional support, one
that revolves around consideration of financial interests to such an extent that
they override other issues. When the Union faced its greatest peril at the turn
of the century the economic climate of the times saw Britain at the head of what
was still a mighty empire that ensured markets for Northern Ireland based
companies. Also, so long as Northern Ireland was of strategic military
importance, considered in its economic context, it could be called upon in order
to re-structure itself in times of war to meet the needs of the army, thus again
ensuring a war boom in the economy of Northern Ireland. Since the high point of
the British empire the tide has slowly been turning, not just for the economy of
Northern Ireland but also too for that of the mainland of Britain to a lesser
extent. Unlike the economy of mainland Britain, despite notable exception, it
has not had to endure the same level of sustained targeting by Irish
Republicanism of economic targets thus assisting this economic decline. The
economy was in part bombed into stagnation as foreign investment was
understandably put off from investing capital in such a politically unstable
society. This fact was, however, not a spur to the tendency so long as economic
growth in the economy of the Republic of Ireland remained slack. Since
approximately the early 1990s the economy is the Republic of Ireland has begun
to experience high levels of economic growth, this has become known as the
‘Celtic Tiger’.
There are those behind the tendency, its financial backers
and representatives in some cases, who would wish to ride upon the back of the
Celtic Tiger. There are those within the tendency who do genuinely believe that
the best way to reinvigorate the economy of Northern Ireland is through some
sort of all Ireland political and economic structure. Others merely wish to see
some sort of short term financial gain and only pay lip to higher aspirations.
They believe that a more all Ireland political structure, with accompanying
harmonisation with regard to matters relating to economic policy and investment
strategy, would lead to many of the transnational companies investing in the
‘North of Ireland’ as they increasingly refer to the political entity called
Northern Ireland. This situation would benefit many within the tendency so they
reason as indigenous capital would be given an extra injection of growth through
what they would anticipate to be substantial backward and forward linkages. That
is, Northern Ireland based companies would so they believe supply the
transnational companies with material inputs while the transnational companies
would also provide semi-fabricated products for indigenous companies to complete
manufacture.
The representatives of the tendency have arranged a
powerful array of arguments in favour of their vision of the future of the state
of Northern Ireland yet their arguments are far from cast iron. Indeed it should
be the burning task of all Loyalist intellectuals to develop counter arguments.
The tendency would appear to look to the short term and fail to realise that
economies are increasingly part of a global division of labour, known as the
process of globalisation. There are those countries or economies that make up
what is termed the core and these are economies that monopolise highly advanced
technology and information. Then are the rest of the world’s economies who
make up what is termed the semi-periphery and periphery. The economies of the
periphery countries will be highly dependent upon low technology high intensity
labour production as well as production of material outputs for the economies of
the core countries. The Republic of Ireland have moved from being a country with
an economy that was a periphery economy to that of a semi-periphery economy but
what the tendency fail to realise that the global division of labour is not
static and the relationships within the world system change over time.
Attracting investment from these transnational companies involves a balancing
act on the part of the government; it involves competing with other governments
of the world in order to win capital investment and offering the most attractive
package to global capital. The policies of the state are often at variance,
however, with the social needs of the society in question and so a contradiction
develops. The state must try to maintain equilibrium and when it fails there is
either social unrest or financial disengagement that in turns leads in itself to
more social unrest and discontentment.
Not only must Loyalist intellectuals develop counter arguments against the tendency but also there may, if the political situation in Northern Ireland with regard to its constitutional position deteriorates yet further and the objective interests of the Loyalist people are threatened yet further, be the very real possibility that the armed Loyalist people may take steps to change this situation. For example, there is no doubt that the IRA have through their selected bombing campaign, and in some cases assassination of local businessmen, contributed towards the economic ruin of Northern Ireland. Would it be any great surprise that Loyalism arrived at the same conclusion that the struggle could take one that involved the very real possibility that the economic interests of Irish capital was put at risk? Would it be any great wonder if they also arrived at the point of view that one of the chief concerns of government is that of financial considerations? Unfortunately it is fact that politics and violence are not distinct spheres of activity within the context of Northern Irelands political landscape. Politics within this context is best thought of as little more than the process by which collective binding decision are made, this process may or may not involve either actual violence itself or the implied threat of violence on the part of those involved in the political sphere. Again, this conclusion will have been given extra weight in the minds of many Loyalist when they consider what they term the ‘appeasement’ process that has bore the fruit of what would appear to be a United Ireland in embryonic form thus leading to the view that violence does get results and that it does appear to work.
Those who are of the tendency, the business elites, and sections of the middle-class and certain officials of the state sell out their own children’s future for a few enjoyments in the present. A new car is to be found sitting in the driveway leading in turn up to a grand house. The children holiday on the continent and want for nothing yet they want for one very fundamental thing: a future. Do you really believe that have one? Do you believe that if you are not a member of any loyal institution, or go to Church on Sunday, nor do anything that offends the susceptibilities of your Irish Nationalist neighbours that the Irish Republican movement will overlook you? Will such people say ‘lets leave them rich prods alone and not burn them out’? You may if you wish sell out your own children’s future if you so wish but you will not sell out the future of the children of the Loyalist people. You are welcome to go where you wish, to Ireland or to Hell, but do not drag our children and us down with you. If you lack the backbone, or the magnanimity, to make a stand then at least stand aside.